Although this post is rather long, it is in fact only a brief overview of my work. Therefore please feel free to ask any questions. I request that first people should try to understand what is proposed so that they get to grips with it. Then look at the predictions and successes. That should ensure some interest in then seeing how it relates to existing physics and cosmology knowledge. I am very happy to receive criticism, but it should not be on the basis that it disagrees with existing theory, rather on the basis of observational evidence. It should be seen that Harmonics Theory is actually a separate domain to much existing physics, mainly predicting new things.

Way back in the 1970s I used to do computer work involving mathematical modeling of economic systems. That might seem a funny place to start to develop ideas relating to fundamental physics, and as you can imagine it was a long and winding road. I will describe a bit of it here and refer you to other places for more reading.

My first economic models were not looking for cycles, but some cycles jumped out of the data and bit me. So I began to look at them and found that they did work for making economic forecasts. It took a while before I noticed that the first four cycles that I had used were related in frequency in exactly the same was as the four notes in a major chord. I didn't mention this for some time for fear of being thought nuts. Even worse, I found the whole musical scale in commodity prices. Eventually I began to look at non-linear systems and discovered that non-linear systems can develop harmonics and that if harmonics of harmonics are also developed then exactly the musical scale is developed.

Step by step the things I studied grew wider and the pattern persisted - economics, biology, weather, climate, geology, astronomy ... the musical pattern characterized by mostly ratios of 2 and 3 between common cycles persisted. My theoretical explanation gradually developed until I took a bold leap which I will describe below. It is important for me to mention that I spent something like 14 years studying cycles, most of these entirely funded by myself so that I could follow wherever the story lead me. So I am not some guy that has a theory that they dreamed up on the way home last night.

Before going into my own work, it is important to set the scene. In the past I did not do this and many people did not get what I had done. The trouble is that knowledge of cycles is fractured over many different scientific disciplines and some not so quite scientific ones. I am a scientist who spent years developing reliable system software in computers. It is a job that tests to the limits your ability to deal with every logical possibility.

Before I made many of my discoveries, except the theoretical part, almost all the rest had been independently discovered by a number of people. Therefore I refer to their research. Foremost among these was Edward R. Dewey who along with a bunch of senior scientists from various disciplines (many in biology or related fields) and others started an organization called the Foundation for the Study of Cycles in about 1941. He summarized the findings on cycles in the 1960s in a paper called "The Case for Cycles" http://www.cyclesresearchinstitute.o...for_cycles.pdf (0.9 MB PDF file). I can vouch for most of the conclusions in this document because I independently came to them without knowledge of Dewey or the FSC or his data or methods.

The most important findings in that paper are that there are a set of common cycles on Earth that are related by simple ratios of 2 and 3 from a base of 17.75 years. By comparison, my common cycles were based on 35.6 years before I heard of Dewey's work, almost exactly 2x Dewey's figure. The cycles that I had found were all in Dewey's list of common cycles and mostly in his simple table, with discrepancies of only about 0.2%.

The eventual axiom that I adopted to explain the cycles, incorporating also the reason for it, I state below. It can be stated without reference to the Universe, such as using "a closed system" but I prefer to be honest about what I think that system is and this is after all an appropriate forum for the big system. :-) The axiom:

The Universe consists of a standing wave that develops harmonics
which are also standing waves and each of these does the same.

Although I call this an axiom, and want you to take it as such and see where it leads, I do present reasons for this. All fundamental physics equations must be non-linear, and it is a property of a non-linear standing wave in a closed system to develop harmonics. Note that the axiom is recursive, it goes on indefinitely.

I will summarize the results and then proceed to the evidence.

Firstly, some harmonics such as the 11th and 13th are only produced in one way while others like the 12th are produced in 8 ways or even more for higher numbers. These harmonics that are produced in multiple ways will receive more energy in them according to the axiom. The pattern of energy predicted by this "Harmonics Theory" does produce musical patterns including the major chord and the whole musical scale. But it is much more complex than that. Although the ratio of 2 dominates between the stronger cycle frequencies, the ratio 3 is also common. That fits Dewey's table. However the predicted pattern also connects Dewey and other cycles that were not recognized as part of the pattern. Ratios of 5, 7 and other primes are predicted to happen far less often between the strongest energy waves. This fact means that the observed pattern of all cycles reported from many disciplines can be compared to the predicted one to determine the fundamental oscillation period of the Universe with some accuracy.

The full description of the maths and some predictions and explanations is available at http://ray.tomes.biz/maths.html and additional material on the physics background is dealt with in two parts (more to come) in my blog on "How to Make a Universe":
Step 1 http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a/2007/07/24/p158
Step 2 http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a/2007/07/27/p159

As we follow it to higher frequencies, it produces huge undulations which relate to the factorizations of the strong harmonic numbers. These huge undulations happen at typical intervals of 10^4.5 in ratio with some slight variations. Interestingly, if we start from the Hubble scale and repeatedly apply this sort of ratio then we get good estimates of the typical distances between the galaxies, the stars, the planets, moons .... atoms, nucleons and perhaps quarks. There is no other physical theory that even hints at this structure of the Universe on such wide scale ratios and none that gets any of these ratios without measured constants being used as a starting point. So this one big success based simply on non-linear wave production must make the theory interesting to scientists.

That is not the only success, there have been about a dozen successful explanations of previously inexplicable data in a way that ties them in together and also a number of predictions that have been later verified. Some of these are:

1. Explains Dewey's table of cycle periods related by ratios 2 and 3.

2. Explain long geological cycles with ratios of 2 (reported in "Megacycles" a book which is the proceedings of a geological conference, edited by G Williams)

3. Explain a set of solar cycles reported in recent literature and noted to be harmonically related, mostly by ratios of 2 and 3. These include cycles of 155, 78, 52 and 26 days and some other longer cycles. These cycles also link flawlessly into the cycles reported by Dewey and others.

4. Explain the 72 km/s redshift periodicity found by W Tifft, H Arp and others. Also predicted a number of further periodicities related by ratios of 2 and 3 which have also been reported by W Tifft. The agreement is at the level of p<10^10.

5. Predicted a new subatomic particle of mass 68 times an electron (34.76 Mev) in 1994, before such a discovery was reported in 1995 by scientists at KARMEN and reported as 33.9 Mev. No other theory predicted this particle.

6. Predicted that stellar spacings, like galactic ones, would show periodicities. These are confirmed by my own analysis, although much better data is now available on distances to nearby stars. It is interesting to note that the distance periodicities in light years match the economic cycle period in years. This confirms that the wave structure that links stars is based on speed of light interactions and so therefore is probably electromagnetic or gravitational or some new aspect linked to these.

7. Showed that Super-galactic wave periodicities reported by astronomers, using the latest Hubble constant, have the right wavelength to be associated with long geological cycles. This connection allows the Hubble constant to be calculated with high accuracy as 71.1 km/s/Mpc, although this could easily be improved by a digit or two.

8. Showed that waves in the solar system link together oscillation periods found in the Sun and the regular spacings of the planets. There are many additional connections here, many of which have been established by Kotov connected with 160 minute oscillations.

I think that is enough to start with, but there is more. I have additional tests which will predict effects that are entirely unexpected by existing physics, such as stellar accelerations relating to the stellar waves mentioned before that will cause small accelerations in stars in the solar vicinity that are detectable in the existing data used for discovering planets.

Perhaps I will close with mentioning that I consider the Harmonics Theory perfectly compatible with relativity and other physics except for the Big Bang theory. Harmonics theory is consistent with a vastly older Universe, and also gives reasons for the cosmological red shift that explains gravity as a side effect. In this it agrees with the suggestion of Arp and Narlikar for variable mass of particles which generally increase over time at the Hubble rate.